|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 1047 Records
-
2011 (1) TMI 1334
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the petitioner's request for condonation of delay in filing returns, acceptance of the return, and grant of refund of tax amount.
Details of the Judgment:
Issue 1: Condonation of delay in filing returns and grant of refund
The petitioner, a Co-operative Society, sought condonation of delay in filing returns for the assessment year 1989-90 due to re-audit orders and court interventions. The respondent rejected the request, leading to this petition. The petitioner relied on a previous court decision emphasizing the duty of the Assessing Officer to process returns for tax exemption claims, regardless of filing time. The respondent argued that condonation of delay is limited to six years u/s the statute, beyond which only the Board can entertain the matter. A circular allowed condonation of delay for refund claims based on genuine hardship, with varying monetary limits for different authorities. The court noted the delay in seeking refunds due to re-auditing issues caused by the Department and the subsequent cancellation of re-audit orders by the court. The judgment clarified that the Assessing authority can condone delay for up to six years, beyond which the Board has the power. The petitioner was directed to approach the Commissioner of Income Tax for condonation of delay within the six-year limit for refund applications based on suffered losses.
Conclusion:
The court disposed of the writ petitions with the observation that the petitioner should approach the Commissioner of Income Tax within the six-year limit for condonation of delay in refund applications due to suffered losses.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1333
Issues involved:
The writ petition seeks to challenge the withdrawal of benefits and show cause notices issued by the respondents, alleging them to be illegal and arbitrary, violating constitutional provisions.
Withdrawal of benefits:
The petitioners established a unit in Himachal Pradesh based on clarifications from the Directorate General of Export Promotion. The eligible exemption was withdrawn, leading to a show cause notice being issued. The petitioners claim the withdrawal was communicated late, hindering their ability to respond. The court notes the option for the petitioners to seek clarification from the Directorate General of Export Promotion and directs them to make a representation within two weeks. The third respondent is instructed to consider the representation and provide a decision within two months, allowing for a hearing if requested.
Conclusion:
The court disposes of the writ petition without delving into the merits of the petitioners' contentions, leaving all arguments open for future consideration. The petitioners are permitted to approach the Directorate General of Export Promotion for interim relief while the matter is pending before them. All pending applications are also disposed of by the court.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1332
TDS u/s 195 - Commission paid to the foreign agent for procurement of Export Order - non-deduction of TDS - effect of withdrawal of circulars - HELD THAT:- Reliance was placed on the decision of Dy.CIT vs. M/s.Siemens Aktiengeselschaft [2009 (12) TMI 952 - ITAT, MUMBAI] as held while deciding a similar issue, the Tribunal held that it is axiomatic that a circular in operation through the relevant assessment year cannot be held to be inoperational simply by reason of the fact that it has been withdrawn in the year 2009 - issuance of circular no.7 of 2009 withdrawing the circular no.23 of 1969, 163 of 1975 and 786 of 2000 will be operative only from 22.10.2009 and not prior to that date. Thus, the withdrawal of earlier circulars with effect from 22.10.2009 has no bearing in the instant case.
It is worth mentioning that the previous year involved in 2006- 07 relevant to the assessment year under consideration. At the relevant time, in view of the C.B.D.T. circular No.23 dated 23.7.1969 and circular no.786 dated 7.2.2000, the assessee was not obliged to deduct the tax under Section 195 of the Act and the circular No.7 of 2009 dated 22.10.2009 withdrawing the circular No.23 of 1969 and circular No.786 of 2000 will be operative only from 22nd October, 2009 and not prior to that date.
Decision relied upon by the AO in the case of Van Oord ACZ India (P.) Ltd.[2007 (11) TMI 332 - ITAT DELHI-D] has been overruled by Hon'ble Delhi High Court [2010 (3) TMI 167 - DELHI HIGH COURT]as concluded that Obligation to deduct tax at source u/s 195 is attracted only when the payment is chargeable to tax in India; IT authorities having accepted: that the non-resident recipient is not liable to pay any tax in India, the assessee- payer was not liable to deduct tax at source under s. 195(1) in respect of the mobilization and demobilization costs reimbursed by it to the said non-resident company. Decided against revenue.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1331
Whether any statutory, fundamental or other right of any person is being violated and an activity which is prohibited under law is being carried out i.e. production and manufacture of asbestos and allied products?
Whether the Government is actively permitting such illegal activity? Second, whether in any case this Court can, in law, direct the banning of this activity, if not, what directions can be issued by the Court?
-
2011 (1) TMI 1330
Denial of SSI exemption (under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993) on ground that assessee is using brand name of another - case of the Revenue is that the appellants had used the brand name ‘K’ belonging VKPL on the excisable goods manufactured and cleared by them - Assessee has not adduced any evidence to substantiate that the logo ‘K’ belonged to others - Moreover, the appellants are not shown to have used the logo ‘K’ written in the peculiar design and style, embossed on the pumps manufactured by VKPL, had been embossed on pumps manufactured by the appellants.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1329
Issues:
Revenue's appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 38/2009 for duty default and penalty imposition.
Analysis:
The appeal pertains to a case where the respondent defaulted in duty payment for May and June 2007, subsequently paying the due amount with interest. The lower authorities observed the utilization of Cenvat credit during the default period, leading to a duty demand and penalty imposition. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the duty demand, acknowledging the correct payment during the default period but upheld the penalty. The respondent did not contest the penalty imposition, leading to the current appeal by the Revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the respondent utilized eligible Cenvat credit for duty payment in subsequent periods, including the default months. The Commissioner (Appeals) based the decision on precedents like Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. and decisions from the Tribunal. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the adherence to established legal principles by various judicial forums. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) decision based on the correct application of legal precedents and established principles. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to legal interpretations set by higher judicial authorities in resolving duty default cases.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1328
Issues involved: Disallowance of repairs expenses and addition of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act.
Disallowance of repairs expenses: The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowance of a specific amount out of repairs expenses, arguing that the expenditure was capital in nature. The A.O. contended that the items purchased were new capital assets, not part of current repairs. However, the CIT(A) allowed the claim, stating that the items were part of repairs and not independent capital assets. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the expenditure was rightly allowed as repairs and not capital in nature.
Addition of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act: The Revenue challenged the addition of a certain amount as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. The A.O. considered the credit balance in the books of the assessee company and concluded that it fulfilled the conditions under section 2(22)(e) for deemed dividend. However, the assessee argued that the credit balance represented the cost of goods or services received, not a loan or advance, and thus should not be treated as deemed dividend. The CIT(A) analyzed the provisions of section 2(22)(e) and ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that deemed dividend can only be assessed in the hands of a shareholder of the lender company, which the assessee was not. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal based on relevant legal precedents and principles regarding shareholding.
Conclusion: The ITAT dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the CIT(A) regarding the disallowance of repairs expenses and the addition of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. The order was pronounced in open court on 19th January 2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1327
Search - Shortage of finished goods - the decision in the case of SOMANI IRON & STEELS LTD. Versus CESTAT [2010 (9) TMI 807 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] contested where it was held that private records, from which the suppressed production was found from the possession of the employees of the appellant. The private records were found in the factory of the appellant. The burden was upon it to prove that they were wrong and did not belong to them, No substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal - Held that: - this is not a fit case for exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India - SLP dismissed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1326
Issues involved:
Cross appeals regarding inclusion of Cenvat element in closing stock, scrap sale in total turnover for deduction u/s.80HHC, exclusion of interest receipt from profit for deduction u/s.80HHC, computation of arm's length price for exports, exclusion of excise duty and sales-tax from total turnover for deduction u/s.80HHC, direction for not deducting certain receipts, and reduction of arm's length price.
Issue 1: Inclusion of Cenvat element in closing stock
The assessee appealed against the inclusion of Cenvat element in the closing stock. The Tribunal, based on previous orders in the assessee's favor, overturned the impugned order, allowing this ground.
Issue 2: Scrap sale in total turnover for deduction u/s.80HHC
The appeal contested the inclusion of scrap sale in the total turnover for deduction u/s.80HHC. The Tribunal referred to a recent order and upheld the impugned order based on the Supreme Court judgment, dismissing this ground.
Issue 3: Exclusion of interest receipt from profit for deduction u/s.80HHC
The contention was about excluding interest receipt from profit for deduction u/s.80HHC. Following a previous decision, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order on this issue for fresh consideration by the AO.
Issue 4: Computation of arm's length price for exports
Challenges were raised regarding the computation of arm's length price for exports to associated enterprises. The Tribunal, considering past decisions against the assessee, dismissed these grounds of appeal.
Issue 5: Exclusion of excise duty and sales-tax from total turnover for deduction u/s.80HHC
The Revenue appealed against the exclusion of excise duty and sales-tax from total turnover for deduction u/s.80HHC. Upholding the Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order on this matter.
Issue 6: Direction for not deducting certain receipts
The appeal contested the direction to not deduct certain receipts. Referring to a previous decision in the assessee's favor, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order on this issue.
Issue 7: Reduction of arm's length price
The challenge was against the reduction of arm's length price. Acknowledging a previous decision against the assessee, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order on this issue, allowing this ground.
In conclusion, both appeals were partly allowed by the Tribunal, with various grounds being upheld or set aside based on legal precedents and previous decisions.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1325
Whether terms and conditions mentioned in the Collectors order are followed by the Applicant land owner or not?
Whether the Applicant has committed any violation?
Whether the land owner has kept water culverts open or not? If the committee finds that the water is stopped which may ultimately cause destroying of mangroves, the committee i.e. Area Officers should make the owner to open the culverts immediately. The committee should make detailed enquiry and the consolidated report should be sent to the District Collector within 15 days?
-
2011 (1) TMI 1324
Whether Appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt for in the opinion of the High Court the charge framed against the appellant had been satisfactorily proved?
Whether the appellants could be given the benefit of doubt having regard to the nature of the evidence adduced by the prosecution against them?
-
2011 (1) TMI 1323
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing special leave petition.
2. Dismissal of special leave petitions based on previous judgments.
Issue 1: Delay in filing special leave petition
The Supreme Court noted an inordinate delay of 242 days in filing the special leave petition. The appellant sought condonation of the delay but failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Court observed that in a similar case involving Hindustan Zinc Ltd., the special leave petition had been dismissed. Additionally, another case related to the Mumbai High Court's decision had its special leave petition dismissed as well. Considering these precedents and the lack of a valid explanation for the delay, the Court dismissed the special leave petition both on grounds of delay and on merits.
Issue 2: Dismissal of special leave petitions based on previous judgments
For special leave petitions numbered 34208/2010, 34209/2010, 328/2011, and 332/2011, the delay was condoned. However, following a previous judgment in Union of India & Ors. vs. M/s Indian National Ship Owners, dated 14th December, 2009, the Supreme Court dismissed these special leave petitions. The Court's decision was based on the precedent set by the earlier judgment, leading to the dismissal of the petitions.
This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to timelines in filing special leave petitions and the significance of providing valid justifications for any delays. It also underscores the impact of previous judgments on the outcomes of similar cases, emphasizing the need for consistency and compliance with legal precedents in the judicial process.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1322
Whether the provisions of the BDA Act, specifically or by implication, require exclusion and/or inclusion of certain provisions like Sections 6 and 11A of the Land Acquisition Act?
Whether the provisions of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act will apply to the acquisition under the BDA Act and if the final declaration under Section 19(1) is not issued within one year of the publication of the notification under Section 17(1) of the BDA Act?
Whether it is a case of legislation by reference or legislation by incorporation?
Whether the BDA Act is a complete code in itself?
Whether the BDA Act and Land Acquisition Act can co-exist and operate without conflict?
Whether there being no contravention between the two laws, they can be harmoniously applied and Section 11A of the Land
Whether Acquisition Act can be read into the BDA Act without disturbing its scheme?
-
2011 (1) TMI 1321
Issues:
1. Whether the presence of Dhapubai in the adoption ceremonies amounted to her consent under Section 7 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
2. The validity of the adoption of Ghisalal by Gopalji.
3. The validity of the Gift Deeds dated 22.10.1966 and 29.11.1944, the Will dated 27.10.1975, and the Sale Deed dated 19.1.1973.
4. The respective shares of the parties in the suit properties.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Consent of Dhapubai under Section 7 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
The primary question was whether Dhapubai's presence at the adoption ceremonies could be interpreted as her consent as required by the proviso to Section 7 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The trial court, lower appellate court, and the High Court presumed her consent based on her presence. However, the Supreme Court held that mere presence does not equate to consent. The Court emphasized that the consent of the wife should be explicit, either in writing or through active participation in the adoption ceremonies, which was not evidenced in this case. The Court stated, "The presence of wife as a spectator in the assembly of people who gather at the place where the ceremonies of adoption are performed cannot be treated as her consent."
Issue 2: Validity of the Adoption of Ghisalal by Gopalji
The trial court and lower appellate court found the adoption valid, presuming Dhapubai's consent from her presence. The High Court upheld this finding. However, the Supreme Court found this reasoning flawed, noting that Dhapubai's role was merely that of a spectator and not an active participant. The Court observed, "Neither Ghisalal nor any of the witnesses examined by him stated that before taking Ghisalal in adoption, Gopalji had consulted Dhapubai or taken her in confidence." The Supreme Court concluded that the adoption was invalid due to the lack of Dhapubai's explicit consent.
Issue 3: Validity of Gift Deeds, Will, and Sale Deed
The trial court invalidated the Gift Deeds dated 22.10.1966 and 29.11.1944, the Will dated 27.10.1975, and the Sale Deed dated 19.1.1973. The lower appellate court upheld the invalidation of the 1966 Gift Deeds but reversed the findings on the 1944 Gift Deed and the 1975 Will. The High Court partially agreed with the lower appellate court. The Supreme Court, however, held that since the adoption was invalid, Ghisalal had no standing to challenge these documents. The Court stated, "As a corollary, it is held that the suit filed by Ghisalal for grant of a decree that he is entitled to one half share in the properties of Gopalji was not maintainable."
Issue 4: Respective Shares in the Suit Properties
The High Court had directed that each party was entitled to half share in the agricultural lands and house property, barring the lands given under the 1944 Gift Deed. The Supreme Court set aside these directions, invalidating the adoption and thereby nullifying Ghisalal's claim to the properties. The Court concluded, "The judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court, the lower appellate Court and the High Court are set aside and the suit filed by Ghisalal is dismissed."
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments of the trial court, lower appellate court, and High Court, and dismissed Ghisalal's suit. The Court held that Dhapubai's mere presence at the adoption ceremonies did not amount to consent, rendering the adoption invalid. Consequently, Ghisalal had no standing to challenge the Gift Deeds, Will, and Sale Deed, and his claim to the properties was dismissed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1320
Exemption u/s 11 - corpus donation - voluntary contributions (whether corpus donations or general donations) received by a Charitable Trust is income as defined vide section 2(24)(iia) of the Act or not - corpus donations are exempt from tax u/s 11(1)(d) only if assessee is registered u/s 12A/12AA of the Act or not - receipt of money by the assessee in the status of AOP - applicability of provisions of Chapter IV.
HELD THAT:- The Tribunal, in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2003- 04, held that the amount received by the assessee trust from its settler, towards infrastructure fund, was not taxable in the hands of the assessee, despite the fact that the assessee trust was not registered u/s 12A of the Act in that year.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, vide its order in BASANTI DEVI & SHRI CHAKHAN LAL GARG EDUCATION TRUST [2009 (9) TMI 978 - DELHI HIGH COURT] have dismissed the Department’s appeal against the aforesaid Tribunal order, by observing the CIT(A) as well as ITAT rightly concluded that the donations received towards corpus of the trust would be capital receipt and not revenue receipt chargeable to tax.
The Department contends that the aforesaid High Court order is under challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of a SLP filed by the Department. This, however, is not premise enough to allow the Department’s appeal, particularly when the High Court order has not been shown to have been stayed. Decided in favour of assessee.
Respectfully following the High Court decision in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2003-04, the grievance of the Department is rejected.
The appeal filed by the Department is dismissed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1319
Issues:
Petition seeking re-credit of refund amount in Duty Entitlement Passbooks (DEPBs).
Analysis:
The petitioner imported goods and paid Customs duty by way of debit in the DEPB Scrips. A refund claim for re-credit of the benefit was sanctioned in the petitioner's favor on 26-3-2009. However, the re-credit was not executed as the original scrips were not produced by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that it had deposited the original DEPB scripts and FMS scrips with the respondent before the order dated 26-3-2009, as per the prescribed procedure. The respondent claimed that the file was missing, leading to a request for duplicate DEPB scrips.
The court considered the submissions of both parties. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the letter from the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana, dated 9-11-2010, indicating that the original file was missing from the department's office. The respondent's counsel failed to counter this argument. Consequently, the court directed respondent No. 3 to provide necessary documents to the petitioner within three months to facilitate the re-credit process. The respondent was instructed to secure duplicate DEPBs and pay statutory interest for any delay in accordance with the law.
In conclusion, the petition was disposed of with the court's decision to grant relief to the petitioner by ordering respondent No. 3 to facilitate the re-credit process within the specified timeline, ensuring the petitioner receives the entitled benefit as per the order dated 26-3-2009.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1318
Issues: Assessment of duty based on capacity of production, verification of mill parameters, validity of changes made by appellant in "d" factor, obligation to indicate changes post-scheme withdrawal.
Analysis:
1. Capacity of Production Assessment: The appellant, a manufacturer of non-alloy steel products, was subject to duty assessment based on the capacity of their production mill. The dispute arose when the officers alleged discrepancies in the declared mill and the "d" factor value claimed by the appellant, leading to a show cause notice for payment of differential duty.
2. Verification of Mill Parameters: The Commissioner's order was based on a verification conducted in December 2000, where it was found that the appellant had made changes to the mill parameters post-scheme withdrawal. The Commissioner held that the "d" factor should be 197 mm instead of the declared 158 mm, leading to an increased duty liability.
3. Validity of Changes in "d" Factor: The appellant argued that the changes in the "d" factor were made after the scheme's withdrawal in July 2000 and should be considered valid. The appellant contended that the late verification by the department did not account for the changes made and sought to set aside the Commissioner's order.
4. Obligation to Indicate Post-Scheme Changes: The Tribunal considered the obligation of the appellant to indicate changes made post-scheme withdrawal. The Tribunal noted the documentary evidence provided by the appellant regarding the changes in the mill parameters and held that the appellant was not obligated to disclose changes made after the scheme's withdrawal.
5. Decision: After analyzing the submissions and evidence, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner's decision to enhance the "d" factor value from 158 mm to 197 mm was not appropriate. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellant as per the law.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the timing of changes made by the appellant in the mill parameters, considering the scheme's withdrawal and the obligation to disclose post-scheme modifications. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of considering the relevant timeline for changes in determining duty liability, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant based on the presented documentary evidence and lack of obligation to disclose changes made after the scheme's withdrawal.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1317
Issues involved: Appeal against rejection of refund claim and imposition of penalty for clearance to SEZ units without executing bond or submitting letter of undertaking.
Summary:
The appellants, manufacturers of Metered Valves, Pump, and Ferrules Actuators, cleared goods to SEZ units under "NIL" rate of duty without executing bond or submitting letter of undertaking as required by Central Excise Rules. After paying the duty and filing a refund claim, the claim was rejected by the Asst. Commissioner, who imposed a penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules. The first appellate authority also rejected the appeal, leading to the current appeal.
The appellant's counsel argued that the goods cleared to SEZ units should be considered as exports, and therefore duty should not be payable. They also highlighted the non-consideration of re-warehousing certificates by the lower authorities and cited relevant case laws and CBEC Circular No. 290/6/97-CX.
The Departmental Representative contended that the refund claim was incorrect as the duty had already been paid by the appellants, falling under the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The authorities had considered the appellants' debiting of the duty amount as payment, not a deposit.
The Tribunal found that the goods cleared to SEZ units were not liable for duty, and any violation of rules could result in penalties, not duty payment. As the re-warehousing certificates were genuine and no dispute existed regarding the goods reaching SEZ units, the amount debited by the appellants could not be considered as duty payable. Therefore, the refund claim fell under the category specified in a relevant Board circular. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1316
Issues involved:
The issue involves the denial of turnover discount by the Revenue due to the appellant not requesting provisional assessment u/s the Customs Act.
Summary:
Issue 1: Denial of turnover discount
The appellant cleared goods from factory to depot with a discount structure of 30% at the time of sale from depot and 7% at year end. The Revenue disputed the turnover discount due to lack of request for provisional assessment. The amount in dispute was Rs. 18,12,381 with an equal penalty imposed. The Tribunal noted that the eligibility for turnover discount deduction from list price is well settled by the Supreme Court. The nature of turnover discount implies that the quantum is known only towards the year end. The Supreme Court has affirmed that turnover discount is an eligible deduction for arriving at assessable value. The failure to follow provisional assessment procedure does not justify denying a benefit already settled by law. The Tribunal held that there was no merit in the demands confirmed by the Revenue, and the appeal was disposed of without the requirement of depositing duty and penalty.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal decided in favor of the appellant, holding that the denial of turnover discount by the Revenue was not justified, and the appeal was disposed of without the need for duty and penalty deposit.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1315
Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of irregularly availed Cenvat credit.
2. Entitlement to Cenvat credit for processes carried out on received goods.
3. Interpretation of Note 6 to Section XVI of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
4. Prima facie view on the process of manufacture.
5. Decision on waiver of dues and stay application.
Analysis:
1. The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,41,04,446/- for irregularly availed Cenvat credit during 1-4-2004 to 31-3-2006. The Commissioner disallowed the credit as the processes carried out were deemed insufficient for manufacturing. The demand amounted to Rs. 2,40,75,746/- with an additional Rs. 28,700/- for inadmissible credit.
2. The Tribunal examined the processes undertaken by the appellant on received goods such as fork lift truck parts, automobile parts, and I.C. engine parts. The Commissioner contended that no new product emerged from the processes, considering them as minor surface cleaning activities. However, the appellant argued that essential operations like drilling, burring, grinding, etc., were crucial for marketable finished goods, supported by detailed operations and customer communications.
3. The Tribunal referred to Note 6 of Section XVI of the Tariff Act, which states that converting incomplete articles into finished ones amounts to manufacture. Considering the essential activities performed by the appellant to make the products marketable, the Tribunal opined that these constituted manufacturing processes, contrary to the adjudicating authority's view.
4. Relying on precedents like Western Refrigeration Pvt. Ltd. and Indo Asian Fuse Gear Ltd., where Note 6 of Section XVI was deemed applicable for similar activities, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the Cenvat credit denied in the impugned order. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered a waiver of pre-deposit and penalty, staying their recovery pending the appeal decision.
5. While the Tribunal did not find a prima facie case for the Rs. 28,700/- Cenvat credit, it noted an appropriation of Rs. 10,33,379/- in the impugned order. Ultimately, the Tribunal granted a complete waiver of the adjudged dues against the appellant and approved the stay application, delivering the judgment on 25-1-2011.
............
|
9911796707
